Literature DB >> 26054631

Surprise Questions for Survival Prediction in Patients With Advanced Cancer: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study.

Jun Hamano1, Tatsuya Morita1, Satoshi Inoue1, Masayuki Ikenaga1, Yoshihisa Matsumoto1, Ryuichi Sekine1, Takashi Yamaguchi1, Takeshi Hirohashi1, Tsukasa Tajima1, Ryohei Tatara1, Hiroaki Watanabe1, Hiroyuki Otani1, Chizuko Takigawa1, Yoshinobu Matsuda1, Hiroka Nagaoka1, Masanori Mori1, Naoki Yamamoto1, Mie Shimizu1, Takeshi Sasara1, Hiroya Kinoshita2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Predicting the short-term survival in cancer patients is an important issue for patients, family, and oncologists. Although the prognostic accuracy of the surprise question has value in 1-year mortality for cancer patients, the prognostic value for short-term survival has not been formally assessed. The primary aim of the present study was to assess the prognostic value of the surprise question for 7-day and 30-day survival in patients with advanced cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The present multicenter prospective cohort study was conducted in Japan from September 2012 through April 2014, involving 16 palliative care units, 19 hospital-based palliative care teams, and 23 home-based palliative care services.
RESULTS: We recruited 2,425 patients and included 2,361 for analysis: 912 from hospital-based palliative care teams, 895 from hospital palliative care units, and 554 from home-based palliative care services. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the 7-day survival surprise question were 84.7% (95% confidence interval [CI], 80.7%-88.0%), 68.0% (95% CI, 67.3%-68.5%), 30.3% (95% CI, 28.9%-31.5%), and 96.4% (95% CI, 95.5%-97.2%), respectively. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value for the 30-day surprise question were 95.6% (95% CI, 94.4%-96.6%), 37.0% (95% CI, 35.9%-37.9%), 57.6% (95% CI, 56.8%-58.2%), and 90.4% (95% CI, 87.7%-92.6%), respectively.
CONCLUSION: Surprise questions are useful for screening patients for short survival. However, the high false-positive rates do not allow clinicians to provide definitive prognosis prediction. IMPLICATIONS FOR PRACTICE: The findings of this study indicate that clinicians can screen patients for 7- or 30-day survival using surprise questions with 90% or more sensitivity. Clinicians cannot provide accurate prognosis estimation, and all patients will not always die within the defined periods. The screened patients can be regarded as the subjects to be prepared for approaching death, and proactive discussion would be useful for such patients. ©AlphaMed Press.

Entities:  

Keywords:  30-day survival; 7-day survival; Advanced cancer; Prognostic value; Surprise questions

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26054631      PMCID: PMC4492240          DOI: 10.1634/theoncologist.2015-0015

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Oncologist        ISSN: 1083-7159


  20 in total

1.  Improving Care Through the End of Life: launching a primary care clinic-based program.

Authors:  M Pattison; A L Romer
Journal:  J Palliat Med       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.947

2.  Prospective comparison of prognostic scores in palliative care cancer populations.

Authors:  Marco Maltoni; Emanuela Scarpi; Cristina Pittureri; Francesca Martini; Luigi Montanari; Elena Amaducci; Stefania Derni; Laura Fabbri; Marta Rosati; Dino Amadori; Oriana Nanni
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2012-02-29

3.  Can we predict which hospitalised patients are in their last year of life? A prospective cross-sectional study of the Gold Standards Framework Prognostic Indicator Guidance as a screening tool in the acute hospital setting.

Authors:  Anne O'Callaghan; George Laking; Rosemary Frey; Jackie Robinson; Merryn Gott
Journal:  Palliat Med       Date:  2014-05-22       Impact factor: 4.762

4.  A new palliative prognostic score: a first step for the staging of terminally ill cancer patients. Italian Multicenter and Study Group on Palliative Care.

Authors:  M Pirovano; M Maltoni; O Nanni; M Marinari; M Indelli; G Zaninetta; V Petrella; S Barni; E Zecca; E Scarpi; R Labianca; D Amadori; G Luporini
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  1999-04       Impact factor: 3.612

5.  Information needs in terminal illness.

Authors:  J S Kutner; J F Steiner; K K Corbett; D W Jahnigen; P L Barton
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1999-05       Impact factor: 4.634

6.  Perspectives on care at the close of life. Serving patients who may die soon and their families: the role of hospice and other services.

Authors:  J Lynn
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-02-21       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  The accuracy of probabilistic versus temporal clinician prediction of survival for patients with advanced cancer: a preliminary report.

Authors:  David Hui; Kelly Kilgore; Linh Nguyen; Stacy Hall; Julieta Fajardo; Tonye P Cox-Miller; Shana L Palla; Wadih Rhondali; Jung Hun Kang; Sun Hyun Kim; Egidio Del Fabbro; Donna S Zhukovsky; Suresh Reddy; Ahmed Elsayem; Shalini Dalal; Rony Dev; Paul Walker; Sriram Yennu; Akhila Reddy; Eduardo Bruera
Journal:  Oncologist       Date:  2011-10-05

8.  Factors considered important at the end of life by patients, family, physicians, and other care providers.

Authors:  K E Steinhauser; N A Christakis; E C Clipp; M McNeilly; L McIntyre; J A Tulsky
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2000-11-15       Impact factor: 56.272

9.  Independent validation of the modified prognosis palliative care study predictor models in three palliative care settings.

Authors:  Mika Baba; Isseki Maeda; Tatsuya Morita; Takayuki Hisanaga; Tatsuhiko Ishihara; Tomoyuki Iwashita; Keisuke Kaneishi; Shohei Kawagoe; Toshiyuki Kuriyama; Takashi Maeda; Ichiro Mori; Nobuhisa Nakajima; Tomohiro Nishi; Hiroki Sakurai; Satofumi Shimoyama; Takuya Shinjo; Hiroto Shirayama; Takeshi Yamada; Shigeki Ono; Taketoshi Ozawa; Ryo Yamamoto; Satoru Tsuneto
Journal:  J Pain Symptom Manage       Date:  2014-12-12       Impact factor: 3.612

10.  Relationship between cancer patients' predictions of prognosis and their treatment preferences.

Authors:  J C Weeks; E F Cook; S J O'Day; L M Peterson; N Wenger; D Reding; F E Harrell; P Kussin; N V Dawson; A F Connors; J Lynn; R S Phillips
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-06-03       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  16 in total

1.  Oral dryness and moisture degree at the lingual but not buccal mucosa predict prognosis in end-of-life cancer patients.

Authors:  Maiko Shimosato; Naoki Sakane
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2021-04-14       Impact factor: 3.603

2.  Early palliative care: current status of integration within German comprehensive cancer centers.

Authors:  Julia Berendt; Stephanie Stiel; Friedemann Nauck; Christoph Ostgathe
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2017-03-23       Impact factor: 3.603

Review 3.  The "surprise question" for predicting death in seriously ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  James Downar; Russell Goldman; Ruxandra Pinto; Marina Englesakis; Neill K J Adhikari
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2017-04-03       Impact factor: 8.262

4.  Prospective Comparison of Medical Oncologists and a Machine Learning Model to Predict 3-Month Mortality in Patients With Metastatic Solid Tumors.

Authors:  Finly J Zachariah; Lorenzo A Rossi; Laura M Roberts; Linda D Bosserman
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-05-02

5.  Clinician prediction of survival versus the Palliative Prognostic Score: Which approach is more accurate?

Authors:  David Hui; Minjeong Park; Diane Liu; Carlos Eduardo Paiva; Sang-Yeon Suh; Tatsuya Morita; Eduardo Bruera
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2016-06-30       Impact factor: 9.162

6.  Association between prognostic awareness and quality of life in patients with advanced cancer.

Authors:  Karolina Vlckova; Kristyna Polakova; Anna Tuckova; Adam Houska; Martin Loucka
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2022-02-04       Impact factor: 4.147

7.  How Well Does the Surprise Question Predict 1-year Mortality for Patients Admitted with COPD?

Authors:  Dana Tripp; Jaclyn Janis; Benjamin Jarrett; F Lee Lucas; Tania D Strout; Paul K J Han; Isabella Stumpf; Rebecca N Hutchinson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-01-06       Impact factor: 6.473

8.  The "Surprise Question" in Neurorehabilitation-Prognosis Estimation by Neurologist and Palliative Care Physician; a Longitudinal, Prospective, Observational Study.

Authors:  Markus Ebke; Andreas Koch; Kim Dillen; Ingrid Becker; Raymond Voltz; Heidrun Golla
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2018-09-24       Impact factor: 4.003

9.  Pretreatment neutrophil-to-lymphocyte ratio and its dynamic changes are associated with the overall survival in advanced cancer patients undergoing palliative care.

Authors:  Weiwei Zhao; Zhenyu Wu; Yintao Li; Huixun Jia; Menglei Chen; Xiaoli Gu; Minghui Liu; Zhe Zhang; Peng Wang; Wenwu Cheng
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2016-08-11       Impact factor: 4.379

Review 10.  How accurate is the 'Surprise Question' at identifying patients at the end of life? A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Nicola White; Nuriye Kupeli; Victoria Vickerstaff; Patrick Stone
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2017-08-02       Impact factor: 8.775

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.